Do you think they did this because he said doctors should wash their hands and the table before delivering a baby. ?

I have yet to see any evidence of this.

Its more consistent with my experience of human beings (which proves nothing) to consider that the particular form of his verbal assaults on his former colleagues may have had more to do with their actions then the mere fact that he advocated handwashing.

Like... if you testify to the police and say that you saw John break into someones house, thats one thing. But if you loudly, publicly, and repeatedly declare that John is a thief, thats another thing. If he gets pissed off an punches you, it won't be because 'you gave honest testimony to the cops', it'll be because you taunted and aggravated him.

I'm not excusing anyone's behavior here, I'm questioning whether he was put in the asylum because he said doctors should wash their hands.

Wow this thread has really heated up.

Bush said this:


I'm not real sure what homeopathy is exactly, but I'm guessing it involves natural cures. Natural cures do work. It has been demonstrated many times and in scientific trials that large doses of vitamin C can CURE CANCER.

These medical trials are published, but they are not indexed and are difficult to find. There is even a law in this country that forbids a doctor to treat cancer with vitamins.

And yet all drugs are made from what was at one time a natural substance or plant. In order for a drug to be called a drug and sold as a drug it has to be altered from its original form.

There is no money in natural cures. Its all about MONEY. There is no profit in good health. The health industry and the drug industry depends on disease!! It is a massive industry supporting many people's careers. Health is a bad for business.

Absolutely not true. Billions are made selling all-natural phoney cures every year.

Also, vitamin C does not cure cancer, but a low-carb diet might.

IT is only YOUR belief that my perception of these events are "highly flawed." Your reason? Because of some vague speculation made by one guy named Nader. His conclusions were not proof of ANYTHING OF THE SORT.



Ridiculous. Unless this sort of things happened to me on a daily basis there can not be any "double blind testing."



I would still have more confidence in a blinded controlled scientific trial if I were involved with it on an investigative level.... not as a scientist.



You said it yourself: "It seems clear that IFF memory is so flexible then...

I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT ALL MEMORY IS EQUALLY FLEXIBLE AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Its a big IF.



"Alternative realities" was never my explanation. (I was only suggesting it for those who like string theory. I don't believe in string theory and alternate realities.)




Exactly!!!!
This is my best explanation. My subconscious mind was aware of more than my conscious mind. It was aware of the probable outcome of my present intention, which was to make a left turn right NOW without looking over my shoulder. This intention, had I followed through, would have resulted in two deaths, maybe three.

But there was no time!! The intention was there!! The accident was imminent inside of one second.

So, my subconscious mind sent the vision to my conscious mind in super fast speed and time appeared to stop or slow down to almost a stop! During that second my conscious mind experience minutes of thinking and visions. I experienced inner dialogue with myself, as you do when you are thinking. All inside of a fraction of a second. I had to change my intention in order to change the event outcome!

Bushi I know it is hard for you to accept, but things like this have been reported by a lot of other people. Time itself appears to stop while the mind speeds up and assesses the situation.

There is nothing "paranormal" about it. Just because scientists can't test this in their laboratories does not mean that they should call this "magic" or paranormal." But that's what they call everything they can't explain. I don't call it that.

I don't believe in "magic" or "paranormal" and just because scientists can't study and test these things that's what they call it.

If I took a DVD player back in time and played it for primitives, they would call that magic too.





Get over it yourself. What you chose to call "paranormal" is just science that you and other scientists don't comprehend and can't test in their labs.

Everything is science. Even what you call "magic" is really science.

Homeopathy is often confused with herbal remedies and other 'alternative' approaches to healing. Homeopathy is a great buzzword, and there are products out there that actually contain useful levels of active ingredients that will slap the label 'homeopathic' on their product because it helps them sell the product. This leads to confusion re: what homeopathy is.

In true homeopathy, its not necessary to have any active ingredient in your preparation, at all. Homeopathic remedies are often diluted to the point of having not a single molecule of of the active ingredient left in the dose given to the patient.

As a sometimes-massage therapist with an interest in herbal remedies, I'd really like people to stop associating homeopathy with other 'alternative' medicine approaches. Its an embarrassment.

I watched a documentary that stated that there are several real studies (published) that indicate that high doses of Vitamin C does cure cancer. There are medical papers on them, but I understand that they are not indexed.

The low carb died, high in fat is B.S. and very bad for you.

The article you linked to about vitamin C is written by a Medical Doctor. They know very little about nutrition and are brainwashed by the Drug companies.

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Sorry, I don't accept his authority.

I posted the definition.

The American Cancer Society and others have been claiming to be working on a cure for Cancer for 30 or 40 years and they have not found one yet. This is by design.

They don't want to find one.

More people are dying from cancer now than 20 years ago.

Pfssst!

This particular post makes me want to call you words that would probably get me banned. Instead I am going to just say you are wrong.

Cancer is not a single thing to be fixed with a single fix. Your ignorance on this topic as well as others is astounding to me.

Really getting involved in science, and most especially medicine is truly humbling, my only desire here is to share some of that, and hopefully open up some eyes to how critical thinking, reason, logic, and science open the doors to real knowledge.

So many people claim special knowledge, and have little special or otherwise.

I never said there was a "single fix" for cancer. There are many kinds of cancer and disease. Instead of fighting disease, people should start learning how to stay healthy.

Eat right, exercise and stop focusing on disease. FOCUS ON HEALTH FOR A CHANGE.

The fact is Bushi, they have NOT FOUND A CURE FOR IT. And more and more people are getting it and dying from it in America than ever and the so-called war on cancer is a complete and utter failure.

You cannot simply cure a single disease. If you are healthy, disease cannot live inside of your body.

If you are not healthy, you could have any number of different diseases with different names, and all are being treated with a different drug with different side effects.

Not many doctors think that what you eat, what you drink, what you do and think have anything to do with your health.

Mostly what they think is that they can fix things with drugs.

Its a business. A drug business. Go to a doctor with any problem. He will usually (not always) prescribe a drug ... with side effects.

My aunt had cancer and she went through all the treatments allowed in the United States until her doctor told her she had about two weeks to live. He sent her home to die and told her she could take as much drugs as she needed for the pain.

She did not want to die. Instead she went to Old Mexico's cancer clinic. They put her on a very specific diet, with vitamins and the vitamin B 17 call Laetrile which is against the law in the United States.

Two weeks later she was able to get off of her pain medications. She continued the treatments, changed her stressful lifestyle, and she lived for six more years. Her hair that she had lost in treatments of kemo, all grew back.

When she walked into see her doctor here he almost fainted. He was certain she should have been dead.

So don't tell me that America knows enough about cancer to treat it. In general, they don't. Laetrile is illegal. Vitamin therapy is illegal. That is ridiculous.

In my experience, these are older doctors who haven't bothered keeping up with science.

I have the opposite experience. The older doctors are not so quick to prescribe drugs.

The young ones fresh out of college are glorified drug pushers.

That's a generalization of course.

I have a great doctor who can manipulate my neck and back. He is not a chiropractor but something else. He is an older guy and he is a medical doctor.

Since I found him, I'll never go to a chiropractor again. He's awesome.

What was the name of that "documentary"?



You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Low carb diets have been shown to lengthen the life of cancer patients and it cures diabetes. It's also a very good way to lose weight (I've lost 50 pounds on one). So maybe you should read some real science instead of the sci-if that you are always talking about?

I agree with that, people should be able to do whatever they want to treat their diseases.

But Laetrile is snake oil and vitamin therapy probably doesn't do much. I'll bet your aunt's recovery was due more to the placebo effect than anything else.

Placebo effect? You are out of your mind. She was given two weeks to live by a medical doctor! She was weak, on heavy drugs, bald from Kemo etc. No placebo is going to give her six more years and cause her hair to grow back. Ridiculous. I can't believe you even said that.

If her survival was due to anything beside Laetrile and or vitamins, it was due to a complete diet and lifestyle change.

Lets summarize the arguments against skepticism.

--We cant know other people exist. (laughable, silly, really should make us all laugh to hear this used as an argument against skeptical inquiry)To pursue knowledge at all one must make this assumption, it is the foundation of all philosophy.

--We should treat all claims equally. Yea that makes sense lets treat the invisible dragon in my garage the same as the keys in my pocket claim. We would have to treat the claim that your husband cheated on you with the neighbor, vs your husband cheated on you with the ghost of Elvis equally.

--Science/Scientists have been wrong before. This is true, however that the people who work toward understanding are wrong at times, even spectacularly so is not an argument against skepticism, but for it.

As much as it stokes the various ego's to try to catch me in a gotcha moment, or attempt to cherry pick and straw man the basic premise of skepticism, the reality is that there is no reasonable argument against it.

That the default position for each person even those so riled against me and my stance are themselves skeptical AND is clearly true from there own behaviors.

No one rationally assumes they have won the lottery just becuase they bought a ticket, we check, no one rationally assumes the random performer dressed like Elvis is actually Elvis. No one rationally assumes that the email saying the Nigerian prince wants to give you a % of his fortune for cashing his checks is legit? No one rationally jumps out of his window becuase he doesn't know he cant fly. (examples vary by education, and general gullibility, the tenor remains unchanged)

Why becuase dependent on the scenario and the persons life experience/and or knowledge they know to be skeptical of most if not all things which can be unknowable without checking into it. Checking is the default in almost every thing we cant know without checking.

This same reason is why when I was faced with assuming I saw the future, or assuming my memory was playing tricks on me I either withhold judgment and collect facts(check), or go with the simpler solution . . . my memory/perception was playing tricks on me.

It is only when bias creeps in that we start to make wild assumptions, and stop checking things which are extraordinary and which can be more easily explained with less fantastic conclusions.

Perhaps it is not as much fun to think a little swamp gas is ionized that caused that light in the sky vs aliens, or perhaps it isn't as exciting to imagine you are being invisibly restrained by aliens when you are in the grips of a sleep paralysis. Perhaps you wont get as much sympathy, or as much attention. However, once you dedicate yourself to truth and knowledge you want to find the ACTUAL truth, not just what is fun exciting, or that which you want to believe, or that which comforts you, or makes you feel special.

You learn to remain neutral to things that can be tested, up until they have been tested and the results replicated without being falsified. You learn methods for removing bias. You learn logic, and fallacy to spot it when you see it. You learn how to investigate premise, and link to conclusion. You understand that many people in the room have not spent so much time in these endeavors and will likely see you as strange for caring at all about the Holocaust denier, or the AIDS denier, or the Cancer research Denier, or the homeopath, or the Anti-Vaccine loon.

Well, I get worked up becuase I have spent that time, I have worked with professionals in the field who are studying some of these things, I have spoke with some of the true heroes of our generation who honestly work to unravel these mysteries, and it physically pains me to imagine the kinds of mental roadblocks that are setup to allow such denial-ism, or that allow so much pseudo scientific ideas to permeate our society and for reasons so banal.

I see this as one of the greatest causes, the cause of truth over rhetoric, the cause of knowledge over lies and make believe.

I watched Documentary on Netflix. I'll see if I can find the name of it again.

I know plenty about low carb high fat fad diets. I did the Atkins thing myself for three months and lost 30 pounds. But starving the body from the good carbs that you need is not healthy. In the long term, that diet does not work. Since then I have learned a lot more about how harmful it is.

I have read both sides of that issue too. Both sides of course are very convincing, but in the end a balanced diet is the right thing, not low this and high that. It is not sustainable. You have to have a diet that you can stick to and stay on comfortably for life not some fad to lose 50 pounds in a few months.

When you go off that diet your body is craving carbs so bad you are likely to over indulge in them, and now you are also used to eating high fat and guess what? You gain back what you lost plus another 10 or 20 pounds. It doesn't work.

Yes I have all the Atkins books and I was a believer. I read them too, and studied them. Not any more. I ate steak four or five times a week with salad etc.

So I will agree to disagree with that fad theory.

I'm now eating less meat and working towards becoming a vegetarian.

Bushi:

Have you ever yourself personally experienced sleep paralysis where you could see and perhaps even feel alien-like entities in your presence?

What do scientist call this other than give it the name "sleep paralysis?"

How do they explain this experience other than simply giving it a name "hallucinations?"

For that matter, how do scientist explain dreams?

Where do the people in your dreams come from? Are they real? Do they exist?

How do you know the people in your waking state really exist? How do you know that they are not simply a dream that has been enhanced and given the feeling of reality? Is this reality "real" simply because it's integrity is more stable and lasts longer than a dream?

How stable is it? You yourself insist that our memories are not reliable and are "rewritten" every time we recall them.

This is what I think. This reality we experience is only real because we say it is real. It is real because we agree it is real.

Our history is only true because we generally agree on what happened, even though no one's memory is reliable.

Perhaps it is real because we wrote it down on paper, or recorded it with a camera. After all, we can't depend on our memories to know what is real.

But how do we know the paper is real or the camera is real. In our dreams, the paper is not real and the cameras are not real. They disappear when we wake up.